Talk:Battle of Khaybar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An entry from Battle of Khaybar appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 8th May, 2006.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)

• Talk:Battle of Khaybar/archive1 (to June 2006)

Contents 1 =Did You Know? Template 2 NPOV 3 Moving 4 Totaly disputed 5 Suggested sources

[edit] =Did You Know? Template

This article was listed on Did You Know as the result of an error; the template at the top of the page misleads the reader into thinking that it was legitimately listed there. Why is the (presumably honest) mistake being compounded by the restoration of this template? — JEREMY 08:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically it was listed as a DYK on both the 8th and 9th:

22:54 May 8th till 04:40 May 9th

• Start
• End

I agree with Jeremygbyrne though that the template shouldn't be there... I've removed it. Netscott 08:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, why shouldn't the template be there?Timothy Usher 08:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Due to the logic that Jeremy has expressed. Netscott 08:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the folks who work on DYK might be the ultimate decision makers over this. Jeremy, I'd recommend you contact those folks. As this'll likely deteriorate into an edit war otherwise. Netscott 08:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. The template reads only a statement of fact, and is accurate in that. It doesn't say it righteously and gloriously appeared on DYK, or anything like that.Timothy Usher 08:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Original research"? Pull the other one. — JEREMY 06:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I continue not to understand what the problem can be with this perfectly standard template which neutrally reports a fact. Why not follow up on Netscott's suggestion?Timothy Usher 07:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I simply can't make myself believe that you don't understand, Timothy. You might disagree, but you understand perfectly well my contention that the template misleads others into thinking the article was a legitimate DYK entry, instead of being removed from that category because it had been promoted against the rules. (Wow, deju va!) — JEREMY 08:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the listings' last mention on the DYK suggestion page showing no dispute. Please provide a link proving your point. --tickle me 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a completely nonsensical assertion that the article was listed on DYK as a result of an error; furthermore, there is no policy, guideline or whatever saying that the Did you know template should be removed from an article's talk page under certain circumstances. If Netscott or JEREMY thought the article should not appear on the Main Page, they should have stated their arguments on the Did you know talk page. It's silly to raise issues several months after the fact. Pecher ^Talk 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing "nonsensical" about it. It was listed in error and was subsequently removed for that error (see also section second from bottom on this diff). The situation was rectified immediately, but certain editors edit-warred the template back onto the page despite knowing full well that the error had been made. — JEREMY 13:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know says: "Eligible articles may only be up to 5 days old, or significantly expanded beyond 1000 characters in the last 5 days." This article was expanded from a stub before being shown on the Main Page, so it was not shown in error, even if one admin thinks it was. That the article was on the Main Page is a fact, don't try to suppress it. Pecher ^Talk 13:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It might say that now, but it most certainly didn't then. If you'd even bothered to glance at the page you'd have noticed the big, bold notice saying THESE ITEMS MUST BE NO MORE THAN 120 HOURS (5 days) OLD! I'm not "suppressing" anything, and I'd thank you not to make such ad hominem attacks. — JEREMY 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It had been an unwritten rule for quite long before it was finally codified. If you look through the archives, you'll find lots of articles unstubbed and then featured in the Did you know. Pecher ^Talk 07:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be the secret-handshake unwritten rule known only to the 133ts like yourself, as opposed to the rest of us chumps who took the CAPITALISED, BOLDED WARNING at face value? Bzzzt. Sorry: no credibility for you. — JEREMY 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have context on what the problem was, and wasn't the admin that added the selection or the template but I'm not sure I see the harm in leaving the template on the talk page. You could add a note if you wanted that it was added by mistake. But it's not a big deal, DYK is supposed to be fun and a way to introduce readers to new articles (that they might be able to improve). Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Having apparently exhausted logical discourse after every one of his objections has been addressed with undeniably factual evidence, User:Pecher — returning unrepentant from a 24-hour ban for edit-warring — is now chosing to merely revert my alteration to the template describing the mechanism by which this article was gamed into DYK and thus onto the main page. Perhaps he or his supporters might suggest a compromise they'd be happy with, so we can all move on? — JEREMY 07:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unstubbed articles are just as valid for DYK as newly-created articles. Regardless, it makes no sense to remove a template specifying that this article was once on the main page, when it in fact was once on the main page. Articles that used to be Featured but were delisted still have a notice saying that they were on the main page when they were featured, simply because removing that notice makes no sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-10 07:26

I suppose, the issue is settled now. Pecher ^Talk 13:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was misinformed by Pecher that the article was unstubbed. It was definitely an invalid nomination. I'm neutral about whether the notice should be removed or not. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-10 16:50

Here is the unstubbing diff[1]. The previous version[2] was a stub. How come I misinformed you? Pecher ^Talk 20:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Going back a bit more into history shows that the article has experienced lots of changes. --Aminz 20:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The article was stubbed because a prior version was a blatant POV copyvio; see discussion above. Pecher ^Talk 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I was misinformed by Jeremy that it was not a stub, when it clearly was. Either way, just keep me out of this debate, since I have no clue what any of your motives are. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-10 21:17

Guys, the article was selected, rightly or wrongly. That's all that matters. I'm with Brian on this one, why does this matter in the grand scheme of things? ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I see this article as anti-Muslim. It is based on western histories which are in fact derived and twisted from Muslim ones. Prophet Muhammad did not actually participate in Khaybar, he sent his cousin Ali as the leader of the army which is a known fact to all Muslims. Why is this stated as a fact->"Kinana ibn al-Rabi, the treasurer of Banu Nadir, whom Muhammad's followers first tortured, demanding to reveal the location of the hidden treasures of his tribe, and then beheaded" This is not true, torture to prisoners is forbidden to the Muslims, I am a Muslim and I know that Muslims especially at the time of the prophet were the most merciful conqueres in history, otherwise not so many people would be muslims today. Sure, booty was one of the goals, but the main reason of the conquest of Khaybar was that the Jews in Khaybar proved to be mortal enemies to the Muslims by helping the Alliance at the battle of the trench, spying, and ultimately attempted to take the life of the prophet. The prophet couldn't deal with them before because he was threatend by Quraish. Banu Quraizah were judged by a dying companion of the prophet named Sa'ad Ibn Ubadah. He was shot by an arrow during the battle of the trench, he was asked by the prophet to judge a suitable punishment for their betrayal of the alliance between them and the Muslims. Hence, he judged their men to be killed and their sons and women to be enslaved. This severe punishment is suitable for allying themselves with the Muslims and when combat starts they try to stab the Muslims from the back. This has nothing to do with them being Jews, it has to do everything with their betrayal

Hamidious 13:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Why does that battle have a lage dump of non-Muslim view to start with? Why can't i read any Muslim views there? --Striver 21:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wtf? The article then procedes with a long bable on their inocense and peace loving-merchant-only greatness and then mind-reads Muhammad's evil motives?! --Striver 21:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"His henchmen stole into Khaybar at night and assassinated Abu al-Rafi ibn Abi al-Huqayq, one of the Khaybar chieftains. "? Is that a neutral tone? --Striver 21:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving

This article is about events relevant to the battle , info about the century old history of khaybar does belong to Khaybar and not here, so i am moving it there. --Striver 23:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totaly disputed

OMG! Look at this:

"The conquest of Khaybar would enable him to satisfy with ample booty his companions who, having hoped to capture Mecca, were disappointed and discontented at the treaty with the Meccans. In addition, the Hudaybiyya agreement gave him the assurance of not being attacked by the Meccans during the expedition."

Even basic understanding of the events shows that they did have no hopes of capturing Mecca prior to the treaty of hudaybia, there is 0 (zero) probability that any scholar whould claim that, and still is that sentence referenced to two scholars. This puts the accuracy of the entire article under question. --Striver 23:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Again the article got it wrong, Bukhari explicitly includes hadith were horse meat are declared halal during this particular incident. --Striver 23:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested sources

Below are some books by scholars that might (from their titles) prove relevant to this article. They should be available in large university libraries. Just suggestions. I haven't had a chance to track down any of them yet. All the authors have other publications too.

G. R. Hawting (2000), The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hugh Kennedy (2006),The Byzantine And Early Islamic Near East (Collected Studies, Cs860)., Ashgate

Hugh Kennedy (2001), The armies of the caliphs : military and society in the early Islamic state, London: Routledge

Michael Lecker (1999), Jews and Arabs in Pre- And Early Islamic Arabia (Collected Studies Series, 639), Ashgate

Michael Lecker (1995), Muslims, Jews, and Pagans: Studies on Early Islamic Medina (Islamic History and Civilization. Studies and Texts, V. 13)

Institutional affiliation of authors Hawting – SOAS, University of London Kennedy – not known but books are reviewed in scholarly journals Lecker– Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Itsmejudith 09:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)